and were allowed one per cent. on moneys received. Mr. W. had no objection to this; the duties were well I done; he had heard of no defalcations. As to the weighers and gaugers receiving four and five thousand dollars a year, it was wholly deceptive; no such salaries were received; out of the moneys set down as salaries these officers had to pay great sums to subordinates and laborers. Thirty per cent. had first to be deducted, and then all expenses; and, when the residue was divided, the average to each officer was in no case over $1,333. Would any gentleman pretend that this was too much? Let the committee scrutinize as much as they please, and the result would be that, instead of diminishing, they would rather be inclined to augment the allowances. [H. OF R. out of which these officers were paid became so much lessened that it did not afford them a reasonable com. pensation. This led to the adoption of the third section of the act of 1833, which is in these words: "SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized to pay to the collectors, naval officers, surveyors, gaugers, weighers, and measurers, of the several ports of the United States, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as will give to the said officers, respectively, the same compensation in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three, according to the importations of that year, as they would have been entitled to receive if the act of the 14th July, 1832, had not gone into effect." Under this law he understood that these officers received the same compensation they did prior to 1832, whether they then received it in the shape of fees or in a salary. On passing the law of 1833 it was expected that the whole subject of paying custom-house officers would be acted upon at the last session; but the destruction of the Treasury building, and consequent loss of digest and recommend a plan for that purpose, prevented those expectations from being then realized. And, in order to prevent these officers from not being sufficiently compensated, a section was introduced at the last session into the appropriation bill, making the necessary provision for paying them, and it is in the precise words of the law of 1833. It has, however, a proviso, limiting the amount that these officers shall be allowed to receive. Under this law of 1834, it was understood that the officers had been paid their respective compensations. On passing the law of 1834, this House considered that the law of 1833 had expired; at this time the law of 1834 must be equally dead. It could not have the effect to give these officers salaries after 1834, unless 1834 could be made to read 1835, &c. It followed that there was no provision at this time to pay these men, if the fund alluded to should fail to be sufficient. In this state of the case the civil appropriation bill comes before us, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. VANCE] proposes to add to the appropriation bill a section repealing that portion of the act of 1834 which provides for making compensation to the officers referred to, and continuing a certain other portion of it. This, to his mind, was like firing a park of artillery at a dead lion. It was hardly worthy of grave legislators to be spending days on a question of repealing a dead law. If the bill contained any provision to pay custom-house officers, there would be some apology for this effort; but it did not provide one cent for them; and the amendment is entirely irrelevant and out of place. Mr. WILLIAMS presented his thanks to the gentleman from Ohio for introducing the amendment. Some such provision would have passed the House at the last session, but the subject was postponed under the expectation that a general bill would be reported. This expectation, however, had failed: and he saw as little prospect of having such a bill this session. He had lis tened closely to the chairman of the Committee of Com-materials collected by the Secretary to enable him to merce, [Mr. SUTHERLAND,] and he could not understand his language as warranting the House to look for any efficient measure from that quarter. Mr. W. hoped the amendment would prevail. It might be very true that the allowances, which all admitted to be enormous, were in conformity with the letter of the law; but was that a reason that the law needed no amendment? Surely, there was as strong a reason for correcting a bad law as for enacting a good one. Whether all this extravagance was indeed sanctioned by law, he would express no opinion; nor was that question material: the remedy could be provided, and ought to be. Was it to be borne that a mere mechanical agent in the collection of money should receive more for his services than any governor or judge in the whole country? A gentleman near him said that, even with this enormous salary, these men did not attend to their business: he had no doubt this was true; for he had never in his lifetime known extravagant salaries make men industrious; but the reverse. As to relying on the Senate to do our duty, it was what he could not approve. Nor was the objection against interposing such a provision in an appropriation bill much stronger. What difference did it make, provided the evil could be arrested, whether it were done by a clause in this bill, or by a separate bill for that object alone? A temporary form did not prevent the law from being in fact permanent, because it was easily re-enacted from year to year. It was the duty of the House to correct such a crying evil when and where it could. He had no certainty that any other bill would be reported: if it were, this provision would do no harm; if it were not, this was all-important. He concluded by demanding the yeas and nays; which were ordered by the House. Mr. GILLET commenced by saying that it was with reluctance that he had arisen to participate in the present debate. The notice, however, which had been taken of the Committee of Commerce, rendered it proper he should say one word on this subject. He would endeavor to state to the House the real question under consideration, in as few words as possible. Un der the acts of Congress, a certain per centage on moneys collected was paid to the collectors of the customs, as well as certain fees of office; out of which certain officers under them were paid the compensation allowed them by law, and the overplus, if any, was paid into the treasury, after deducting the salary of the collector. On reducing the duties on imports in 1832, the amount of these commissions and fees became materially diminished, though the labors of these officers continued very much the same. The consequence was, that the fund But the gentleman talks much of enormous sums taken from the treasury to pay certain of these officers. He forgets that much of what many of them receive, and about which he speaks, is fees paid by individuals, and but very little is ever paid them from the treasury; and he also forgets that many of them disburse much of what they receive in paying their necessary assistants. It was highly probable that some of these officers were too well, and others too poorly paid. This is not the proper place to examine and act upon that subject. He had profited by experience. He well recollected last session, his venerable friend from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] assumed the ground that appropriation bills ought not to be loaded with extraneous matters. Their office was merely to appropriate money, under existing laws, to compensate public agents, and to execute public works. This was the true rule, and one which he desired to act upon. But (said Mr. G.) we are told that if we do not add this clause now to this bill, we shall not be able to act on the H. OF R.] subject this session. Commercial Agents Abroad. He did not deem it important that it should be done; for unless we pass a law to pay these officers, there will be no law to pay them from the treasury, and the fund referred to cannot give them what they received under the gentleman's amendment of last year. But to his mind it would be less out of place to add the gentleman's present amendment to many of the other bills which were certain to come up this session. He, (Mr. G.,) however, hoped to see this whole subject brought before this House at this session, in a proper form, from the appropriate committee. It was a subject of vast importance, and required much deliberation and care. It was first necessary to establish a proper basis, and then the details would require great consideration and attention. He hoped, if he had any agency in preparing the bill, to aid in infusing into it so much of lib. erality and economy as would make it acceptable to all sides of this House. He would diminish the number of these officers to the actual necessities and wants of the Government, and was not for paying them, or any other officers in the Government, a salary larger than was ne cessary to ensure the services of competent, faithful, and efficient men. More than this would be justly termed extravagance. On the other hand, that rate of compensation which was so low as not to ensure the services of such persons as he had described, would be ill-timed economy, would result in injury to the public interests. When you pay too low to command the services of men of capacity and integrity, you are sure of being badly served. Your agent must live, and if you do not give him such compensation as will allow him comfortably to do so, he is sure to cheat you in the time he serves you or in some other way; for a living he must and will have. If he cannot live honestly, he will do so dishonestly. You may obtain capacity to do business at a low price; but integrity is quite as important as talent. The public service requires both. He would, however, avoid, if possible, having any officer whose compensation should depend upon contingencies. It should not be composed of per centages, or allowances, or any thing of the kind. He preferred paying a distinct annual salary; then the law would inform us how much each public agent received for his services. This would prevent the dishonest from paying or receiving too much, and it would shield the upright from suspicion. Then, on the last day of the year, the compensation of all officers for the ensuing year could be accurately calculated. All would be paid distinctly under statutes, and Congress would be responsible to the people for the amount paid. Then the Executive would be free even from the suspicion of having, by his own act, increased the expenses of Government. He would be, in the disbursement of the public moneys, the executive of the laws of Congress-an agent without discretionary powers. It would relieve him of much of the embarrassment now necessarily attendant upon his office. The heads of the Departments, and their accounting officers, would also be relieved from an unpleasant and vexatious part of their duty. These suspicions against the integrity of officers would be much less likely to be raised; now, he believed most of these suspicions grew out of the fact that many officers were not paid a certain and definite sum as a salary. He had urged these considerations upon the attention of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WATMOUGH] when considering the navy pay bill, and he was happy to learn that they had been duly appreciated, and were likely to be ingrafted on it by common consent. Once adopt a definite salary as the mode of pay, you do away with all those difficulties that are said to be so common between those who have accounts and accounting offi cers. [JAN. 28, 1835. custom-house pay bill, he thought that branch of the public service would be relieved from unjust suspicion. He did not expect, in the details of any bill that could be reported, that we could all agree in opinion, in every instance, as to the number and compensation of officers. These things were mere matters of opinion; but, in the principles of compensation which he had suggested, he hoped the gentleman from Ohio would acquiesce. He even hoped that they would be unanimously assented to by the House. After this frank expression of his views and expectations, he hoped the gentleman from Ohio would not further press this subject upon the consideration of the House, but allow this bill to take the ordinary course through it, untrammelled by the consideration of subjects totally disconnected with those presented to our consideration in the bill. Mr. HARPER, of Pennsylvania, said that, as several gentlemen had referred to statements made by him in a previous stage of this debate, he thought it incumbent on him to explain. The gentleman from New York [Mr. GILLET] was mistaken in supposing that the weighers, gaugers, &c., performed the same duty after the reduction of the duties as they had done before: it was not so: because a large class of articles of import being wholly freed from duty, it became no longer ne cessary to ascertain their weight or quantity. These officers, therefore, received, under the law of of 1834, the same pay as they had previously received, though they did not by any means perform the same service. The service ceased, but the salary was continued. As to the notion that they threw their receipts into common stock, and then made an equal division, it was wholly a mistake; so far at least as Philadelphia was concerned, no such practice prevailed there. It might be the custom in New York; but in a majority certainly of our seaports, it was otherwise. [Mr. WARD said he personally knew that such was the practice in New York.] Mr. HARPER resumed, and made some further expla nations in reference to the re-weighing of certain goods. As to the idea of leaving this matter to the Senate, he would state that, from conversation with a member of that body, he learned that the Senate relied upon the House to propose the necessary plan. He did not doubt that, with the present enormous number of clerks to be paid by the collectors, those officers might, in some cases, receive a very inadequate compensation: but what was the proper remedy? Increase their salaries? No: but reduce the number of clerks. If, then, there should not be sufficient to perform the duty required by the public service, let it be shown, and let the Department come to the House for more. notion of allowing all these officers to put their hands into the treasury and take out the money, till their liv ing came up to what it had been before their duties were diminished, he was opposed to it entirely. He regretted that, after waiting for two years, the House had not yet got any thing in the shape of a bill from the Committee of Commerce. If it were true that the provision in the second section of the law of 1834 did expire with that year, it would be necessary to do some thing to equalize the salaries, or to pay some of the offi cers more than they would be entitled to receive. But as to the It being now past 4 o'clock, Mr. McKINLEY, with a view to put an end to the debate, moved the previous question; but the House refused to second it. Whereupon, the House adjourned. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28. Mr. FOSTER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, Should these principles be adopted in the reported a bill to prescribe the punishment of consuls, 1 JAN. 28, 1835.] General Appropriation Bill. [H. OF R. vice consuls, and commercial agents; which was read be reduced; but in New York this could not be done. twice. Mr. ROBERTSON remarked that there was one feature of the bill which he considered of great interest and importance, and in which he did not concur with the committee. He would, therefore, move so to amend the bill, as that the fine and imprisonment provided by it should be left to the discretion of a jury, instead of the court. Mr. FOSTER remarked that the gentleman had moved a similar amendment in the committee. Several members were disposed to favor it; but a majority of the committee were of opinion that this should not be made an exception to the general rule of proceeding in cases of a similar character. The city was divided into fourteen districts, with a weigher in each: less would not do. A number of vessels arrived at one time, having dutiable and weighable articles on board, and they must not be detained; and though the number of such articles had been much lessened by the reduction of the tariff, yet almost every ship had some, and the number of weighers was regulated by the number of ships, and not by the quantity of goods to be weighed. If the amendment should pass, these men would not get their expenses. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. VANCE] had stated the per centage paid for the collection of the revenue as being over five per cent. on the gross amount of duties collected. This might be true, when all the ports were taken into the calculation; but Mr. ROBERTSON remarked that the State from the cost of collection in the city of New York, where so which he came held the trial by jury as a sacred princi- large a proportion of the whole amount was received, ple, and he was unwilling in this case to yield that prin- did not exceed three and a quarter per cent. Many of ciple, and vest the decision in one man. It proposed the custom-houses were actually an expense to the Govto give to the court a discretion which he thought dan-ernment; it cost much to keep them up, and they colgerous and improper, and which should be left to a jury lected but little revenue. Yet, from their local situation, of the country. it. was indispensable to keep them up to prevent smugThe amendment was disagreed to, and the bill order-gling. Here was the place to retrench, if any retrenched to be engrossed. After the reception and disposition of various memorials and resolutions, Mr. POLK called for the orders of the day. Mr. POPE reminded the House that, about ten days since, he had given notice that he would, on this day, move the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, to consider the bill reported by him in relation to the Louisville and Portland canal. As the appropriation bill was still under discussion, he would postpone his motion until that bill was disposed of. The amendments of the Senate to the bill of the House for the adjustment of land claims in Louisiana, were concurred in. The bill for the benefit of the city of Alexandria came up upon the motion to reconsider the vote whereby it was rejected. On motion of Mr. MERCER, it was postponed until to-morrow. GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL. The House resumed the consideration of the appropriation bill for the civil list, with Mr. VANCE's amendment thereto. Mr. WISE, of Virginia, said he was astonished that members of that House should believe that subordinate officers of the customs, such as a weigher or gauger, ac tually enjoyed an income of $6,000 per annum. They were entirely deceived. No such state of things existed. Mr. W. here went into a number of statistical statements, which could not be caught by the reporter with sufficient accuracy to be depended upon. The result, however, was, that under the act of 1833, the weigher received emoluments to the amount of $1,093, in addition to $1,333, which they had formerly received. The present amendment went to take off the $1,093, and to leave these officers with an income of but $1,333. Would any man contend that this was sufficient for a respectable man obliged to live and maintain a family in the city of He was sure no gentleman would pretend such a thing. Mr. W. then read to the House an estimate of the expenses of such an officer, allowing him to have a wife and two children, and which brought up the amount of their maintenance to $1,495. Mr. W. then declared his willingness to abide by the provisions of the act of 1834, which limited the salaries of such persons to $2,000. New York? The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. HARPER] had proposed that the number of subordinate officers should ment must take place; but let not the chief reduction be made where the chief amount of labor was performed. As to the increase of the expense of stationary, that was to be accounted for from the new arrangements adopted to receive the duties. The books to be kept were three times as numerous as formerly; and hence the great multiplication of clerks. [Mr. VANCE here referred to duties to show that the increase commenced before the new arrangements, and therefore could not be attributed to them.] Mr. W. protested against the principle of setting up the offices of the customs to the lowest bid. If that should be made the policy of the Government, he would show them men, decent in appearance, who would be willing to fill the offices not only for a low salary, but for no salary at all. The facilities in the power of weighers and gaugers to defraud the Government were numerous and great. They could easily manage to make up the amount of sugar deducted from a hogshead, or supply the room of wine withdrawn from a cask, and nobody be the wiser; it might be done so that detection would be impossible. He mentioned this only to show the necessity and the policy of employing men of respectable character and standing; and if the Government would have such men, it must consent to pay them well. It was the only way to command honesty and respectability in their servants. If the amendment should prevail, the officers must cheat or starve. And many men who would scorn the idea of defrauding their fellow-citizens in their private transactions were wholly insensible to the guilt of evading the revenue laws. Custom-house oaths had become proverbial for the laxity with which they were observed. Mr. JARVIS proposed to amend the amendment of Mr. VANCE, by adding a proviso that the present number of custom-house officers should not be increased without the permission of Congress. As the law now stood, the Secretary of the Treasury and the collectors had the power of transferring the number of officers employed in the different custom-houses, so as to employ the most officers where there was the greatest need of them; the wording of the amendment would prevent this. [Mr. VANCE signified his willingness to accept the amendment.] Mr. JARVIS said he would add a word in reply to the statements and arguments of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. WISE.] According to him, the inspectors of the revenue received three dollars per day, or $1,090 per annum. Now, if the weighers could not live on a less salary than $2,400, how could the inspectors get along upon $1,090? They were as respectable men as the weighers; they had wives as well as they, and as many children to feed; and as to their responsibility, and their opportunities of fraud, they were not only as great, but greater than those of the weighers. It was as easy for an inspector to certify that goods entered for drawback had been on board a ship, when, in fact, they never were there, as it was for a weigher or gauger to mark a false weight on a hogshead of sugar or a pipe of wine. Mr. J. regretted the necessity of introducing such a provision as this in an appropriation bill; but, unless this was done, he saw but little chance of any thing like reform in our collection system. Gentlemen made no objections to encumbering the bill by adding provisions which went to spend money; why should they be so very fastidious when the object was to save it? Mr. HARPER explained the manner of conducting the process of weighing in the port of Philadelphia. The weigher sent his agents and laborers from wharf to wharf, and whenever they found goods which needed weighing they weighed them. There was no need of having a weigher to each ship, as the gentleman from Virginia seemed to suppose. And as to a division of salary, no such thing was ever heard of among the custom-house officers in that port. Mr. H. also explained the course of things which took place when goods were entered for drawback, and the facilities enjoyed by inspectors who were dishonest to defraud the Government. He pressed the inquiry, how these officers were to live on $1,090, when the weighers could not subsist on less than $2,400. He insisted that the estimate for family expenses, which had been read by Mr. WISE, was exaggerated greatly, especially in the items of fuel and house rent. No doubt, the estimate had been furnished to the gentleman by persons who had an interest in the decision. The question was not how much a man could spend, but what was a just reward for the labor he performed. The inspectors were well satisfied with their three dollars per diem; and why should one officer get $2,000, when another who did as much, and more, got but $1,000? Mr. H. contended that fewer weighers might get through with all the public duty that was to be done; and he protested against keeping up an army of unnecessary retainers on the treasury, for no purpose but to strengthen the hands of power, and who were under every temptation to become the mere tools of those who fed them. Mr. McKIM said that, in consequence of what had been said respecting the enormous emoluments of custom-house officers in Baltimore, he had procured a certificate, which he held in his hand, and would read to the House, from which it would appear that the collector of that port received in the year 1834 just $433, and no more. In the preceding year his income had amounted to $1,582. Mr. McK. said he had been a practical merchant for forty years, and he must be supposed to know something about the subject before the House. If the salaries of these officers had got wrong, the fault did not lie at their door, but was chargeable upon that House. No man had tried harder than he had to get these very salaries reduced; but the House had refused to do it. This was no fault of the officers, nor was it fair that they should be reproached on account of it. In Baltimore there was one weigher who received, it appeared, $1,970; but out of this sum he had to pay all his laborers. In New York, which was a great commercial port, it was indispensable that they should have a great many; and he had understood that they were in the habit of dividing their receipts. He considered the amendment as out of place in any appropriation bill; the proper way would be to have a separate bill reported, allowing the [JAN. 28, 1835. collectors, and all the subordinate grades of officers, fix. ed salaries: then all would work right. He inquired whether gentlemen who talked so loudly about the col lector at Baltimore would have remained in that office during the embargo and non-intercourse times? He fancied not. Did gentlemen expect that collectors in the Southern ports, at New Orleans and Mobile, where the climate in the autumn was so unhealthy, would remain at their posts without an adequate remuneration for the sacrifice? Officers in such a climate ought in justice to be allowed more than at the North. It was true that some of the ports were small, and but little revenue collected; but the officers there were highly respectable, often among the most so of our citizens. Mr. McK. stated what was done with goods entered for drawback, and showed that it was the interest of the inspectors to detect frauds, if any took place. From the manner in which this part of the collection was conducted, no fraud could be practised without a conspiracy of many persons for the same object. No doubt some frauds had occurred, but not to the extent supposed. Mr. McK. was opposed to the amendment, as too indefinite in its provisions. He should prefer the allowance of salaries. Mr. WISE rose in reply. Gentlemen had asked, if the weighers could only live on $2,000 or $2,400, how could the inspectors live on $1,090? And what did their argument prove? That the weighers received too much? Not at all; but that the inspectors received too little. But was it a fact that the inspectors did live on $1,090? Did any gentleman believe that they lived and supported their families, as many of them did, on three dollars a day? Could any gentleman here say how much they did receive? The truth was, that there was scarce an inspector to be found that was not worth his thousands, which they had gathered from the "wee bits aboot the decks," and this would ever be the case where the compensation allowed was too little for men to live He was for keeping these offices respectable, and in the hands of honest and responsible men. As to the alleged exaggerations in the estimate he had submitted, let the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. HARPER] reduce the items of wood and fuel as much as he had proposed to do, still the amount would be over $1,100, beside all the other items, which had not been noticed at all. A respectable man with a family could not live in New York on less than $1,500. on. Mr. HARPER said that he was unwilling the idea should go abroad that the inspectors of the revenue were dishonest men. It was his pleasure to be acquainted with many of these officers, and he could say, with truth, that more upright and honorable men were not to be found in the community. They did not receive a cent beyond their lawful salary. He would not consent to the statement that they lived on bribes. It was not the fact. Mr. SUTHERLAND said that he owed it to the custom-house officers of Philadelphia to say that he did not believe there was a man among them who could with truth be charged with corrupt practices. He was acquainted with one who had been a gallant officer in the late war, and who stood as high in the estimation of society as any man in that House or out of the House. As to what his colleague [Mr. HARPER] had said about the inspectors being so content with their three dollars a day, he could tell that gentleman that he (Mr. S.) knew of applications for increase of pay, if his colleague did not. He had himself received such applications, both this year and the last. He concurred in the sentiment of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. WISE,] that if you wanted good officers, the best way was to pay them well. The corruption which had prevailed in the English mode of collecting the revenue was proverbial: but that Government had determined to probe that matter to the bottom, and to reform it. True, by clipping and shaving, it might be possible to live on something less than they now did; but was it good policy to render this necessary? The gentleman's estimate was for two children only. Mr. S. knew inspectors who had six and eight children. Were gentlemen for cutting them down to the old rule? Would they insist upon knowing how many cords of wood they burnt? would they weigh the pounds of butter they ate, that they might go home and tell their constituents what wonders they had effected in the matter of public economy? What use was it to insist upon the Secretary of the Treasury's taking care of the public money after it was received, if the very avenues by which it went to the treasury were left exposed to waste and fraud? The new invention of gentlemen to guard these avenues was to cut down the living of those who guarded them. was no wise way, in his judgment. It Mr. S. said that he had purposely refrained from entering into the debate: he did not now wish to embark in it. He was convinced the amendment was wrong, and he could show it: but he had rather the bill should pass, even with the amendment in it, than be thus delayed. The committee would yet send in a bill on the subject. They would endeavor to provide themselves with golden scales to weigh every pound of butter to be allowed to these officers and their families: they should endeavor to fix how much they should receive if they had six children, and how much less should be allowed if they had only five. The committee had been called upon for a bill of this kind, and they should endeavor to respond to the call. In the meanwhile, the sooner the House disposed of this amendment the better. If it should be adopted, his colleague knew officers who would not realize more than three or four hundred dollars for their year's labor; and even collectors would not receive over $1,500. And the risk of this was to be incurred that we might appear well elsewhere, and be able to say I kept down the salaries to $2,000, while at the same time he knew that the men did not receive $500! It was a mockery! Mr. S. concluded by declaring that he was willing now, as he had been last year, that the salaries of the subordinate officers should not exceed $2,000: but he should oppose a measure which would cut them down to less than a fourth of that sum. Mr. BURGES addressed the House, but, owing to his distant situation, could not be distinctly heard by the reporters. He was understood to say that he should not have mingled in the debate, had not things arrived at such a pass that members of that House were to be openly sneered at because they wished to keep the expenditures of the Government within something like reason. It was the first time, within his remembrance, that a member on that floor had been sneered at, and almost insulted, for endeavoring to do his duty in curbing official extravagance. Every thing, it seemed, must give way before the of fice-holders of this Government. When a meritorious naval officer had lately applied for his just due at the hands of this House, certain gentlemen had said that if he was not willing to perform the services of two offices for one salary, he was at liberty to resign. Yet now these same gentlemen were ready to sneer at those who considered $2,000 a sufficient living for a man who weighed salt and sugar. If these men could not live on that, let them resign: there was land enough, very cheap and very fertile, some yielding thirty, some sixty, and some a hundred fold. Their absence would scarce be felt. There was enough of them to form an army; some ten or fifteen thousand of them might be enlisted before to-morrow. The House had been told that the [H. OF R. way to make men honest was to give them plenty of money. This Mr. B. never knew before. He had till now been in the habit of believing that, if a man was not honest, neither the touch nor the complexion of gold would purify or raise his corrupt and abject soul. He was willing to give to United States officers the same compensation for labor as was secured by other people, and no more. Look round the country, and see the general rush to get into office. This was the course of things which threatened ruin to the liberties of our land. These men were now willing tools; they vied with each other in subserviency: but after they had lent their aid and established a despotism, they would soon find that they would have to work for much less than they got now. The people got for their labor fifty per cent. less than their servants did for theirs. He knew it to be so, and he considered it high time that the matter was regulated. But gentlemen told the House that they must not adopt the amendment to effect this object, because a certain committee had it in contemplation to introduce a bill. But he was well satisfied that the committee would continue contemplating, and never come to an end till the office-holders were so multiplied that they howled daily for more. was a very convenient thing for those in power to have a host of places with salaries at their own discretion, where they might reward meritorious services. It was a most glorious thing thus to wield a little arbitrary power against the interests and happiness of their fellowmen. If the Committee of Commerce were determined not to do their duty, Mr. B. was for a measure that would crowd the office-holders to crowd the committee. It Mr. MANN, of New York, did not wish to enter into the debate, but merely to assign the reason why he should vote against the amendment. He had been informed by a member of the Committee of Finance in the Senate, that it was the purpose of that committee to introduce a bill expressly to regulate this whole matter. This bill would probably reach the House in time for its action this session. Mr. HARPER replied with some warmth to what he considered as the sneers of his colleague, [Mr. SUTHERLAND,] who had charged him with a wish to count cords of wood and weigh pounds of butter. His colleague might sneer as he would, but he never could consent that a weigher should receive $6,000 a year, while the workmen, who actually did the weighing, received but $24 a month. He should have supposed that his colleague's very philanthropic feelings, his great and extensive benevolence towards poor men, would have led him to inquire how these laborers got along upon $24 a month. Had these men no wives and children to feed? no houses to live in? no wood to buy? He thought it would have been quite as kind and quite as becoming to look after the wants of these people as of the weighers and gaugers, with their five and six thousand dollar salaries. Had the gentleman attended to his own duty as chairman of the committee, who had been two years in reporting a bill, he would have been spared the need of sneering at him. Had that been done, the collector of Baltimore would have been provided for, and not have been living one year on one thousand dollars, and another on three or four hundred dollars. The gentleman had talked about inspectors, and their need of large incomes. But he would ask the gentleman who our inspectors were, and what had the most of them been previously to their appointment to that office? They were, for the most part, honest and respectable mechanics, who earned a dollar and a half or two dollars a day, and supported a wife and children on that. Why must they get so much more because they were paid out of the treasury? Mr. SUTHERLAND denied having sneered at any |